On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:53:44 +0200, Stéphane Payrard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 06:17:14AM -, David Formosa (aka ? the
Platypus) wrote:
[...]
>> I would prefur this to be written.
>>
>> use strict "types";
>>
>
> I suspect there will be many ways to do types st
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 10:44:03AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> If it would help for me to give more details about the bsr/ret scheme
> I'm using, I'll be glad to post it. I could certainly give a Perl 6
> equivalent of the rule we're looking at. But essentially the key is
> that a "bsr" a
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:11:26AM +, Smylers wrote:
>
> To me 'deeply' implies recursing as deep as the data structure goes, not
> that there's a special rule for the top-level that's treated differently
> from the others.
Nobody is saying is_deeply shouldn't be deep. If I understand
correc
demerphq writes:
> On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ... I'm of the opinion that is_deeply() is currently doing the right
> > thing ... Largely it comes down to the Principle of Least Surprise.
>
> I cant agree with this analysis. If you go down this route surprise
>
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 08:29:59PM -0400, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 05:11:10PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > Well, I think there are already way too many pointer casts and related
> > games in the source. Perhaps more to the point, not all casts are going
> > to work.
>
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:11:26AM +, Smylers wrote:
> > The question you have to ask yourself is why should a reference be
> > treated different from any other value? It is a VALUE.
>
> Except it isn't. Or at least, not all the time: it depends how you wish
> to look at it. If you just cons
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 08:28:30AM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> > After talking with Ovid some in the kitchen I'm of the opinion that
> > is_deeply() is currently doing the right thing and that these tests cannot
> > go. Largely it comes down to the Principle of Least Surprise.
>
> I cant agree with
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 08:37:44AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 10:59 -0400, Matt Fowles wrote:
>
> > Would it be reasonable to not run tests that are known to leave core
> > files? I feel like after a successful build there should not be
> > evidence like this left around...
>
Curtis Hall wrote:
Ok, update. Have Pirate and Parrot running smoothly now. Had Python
version
2.4, which Pirate didn't like. Had to link it to my 2.3 version. Had
to mess
with PATHing a bit and now I'm all set.
Wanted to introduce myself. I'm a senior here at the UofA in Tucson,
AZ work
On 7/1/05, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq writes:
>
> > On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ... I'm of the opinion that is_deeply() is currently doing the right
> > > thing ... Largely it comes down to the Principle of Least Surprise.
> >
> > I cant agr
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I suspect it's an issue with register spilling, that I15 is being
reused somewhere later to represent something other than the "cutting"
value.
Please not that this has nothing to do with register spilling, where due
to a lack of registers these are stored into (and
Kevin Tew wrote:
I've been working on a python compiler also, feel free to take a look,,
svn co http://svn.openfoundry.org/pyparrot languages/python/pyparrot
My current boggle is how to handle the self parameter to method functions.
You can do things like this in python
def foobar( arg1, arg2
On 6/30/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yves has some controversial ideas about what is and is not data structure
> equivalence. I'd like comments on it.
Well while im disappointed that its considered to be a controversial
position (why is accuracy and correctness controversial
Time flies like an arrow. I remember doing the last release was just a
few days ago. Anyway:
* feature freeze starts now
- please no feature changes to parrot core
- bug-fixes, documentation updates, test reports (PLATFORMS)
are very welcome
- updates to languages are welcome to, but
demerphq writes:
> Well that says there are two different behaviours that people expect.
> They are exclusive.
Yes. We all want to do the least surprising thing, but it seems
different people are surprised by different things; whichever behaviour
is implemented some people are going to suffer un
demerphq wrote:
On 6/30/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yves has some controversial ideas about what is and is not data structure
equivalence. I'd like comments on it.
Well while im disappointed that its considered to be a controversial
position (why is accuracy and correct
On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is_deeply() is not about exact equivalence. Its about making a best fit
> function for the most common uses. I think most people expect [$a, $a] and
> [$b,$c] to come out equal.
>
> Test::Deep is for tweaked deep comparisons.
Test::Deep d
On 7/1/05, Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > is_deeply() is not about exact equivalence. Its about making a best fit
> > function for the most common uses. I think most people expect [$a, $a] and
> > [$b,$c] to come out equal.
> >
On 7/1/05, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq writes:
>
> > Well that says there are two different behaviours that people expect.
> > They are exclusive.
>
> Yes. We all want to do the least surprising thing, but it seems
> different people are surprised by different things; whichever
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 02:34:27PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Please not that this has nothing to do with register spilling, where due
> to a lack of registers these are stored into (and fetched from) an array
> in P31. We've got a problem of a register changing it's value - or not.
Noted,
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 08:38:01AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 10:44:03AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > If it would help for me to give more details about the bsr/ret scheme
> > I'm using, I'll be glad to post it. I could certainly give a Perl 6
> > equivalent of
On 7/1/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
> > On 6/30/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Yves has some controversial ideas about what is and is not data structure
> >>equivalence. I'd like comments on it.
> >
> >
> > Well while im disappointed tha
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 11:46:55PM -0400, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2005, at 20:38, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>
> >I've just checked in changes to PGE that enable it to support
> >grammars, as well as some more built-in rules...
>
> These are totally awesome. On the plane today, I conver
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:11:26AM +, Smylers wrote:
>> > The question you have to ask yourself is why should a reference be
>> > treated different from any other value? It is a VALUE.
>>
>> Except it isn't. Or at least, not all the time: it de
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 08:38:01AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: Does this mean that you're using the same recursive approach that the perl 5
: regular expression engine uses? (Not that I understand much of the perl 5
: engine, except that uses recursion to maintain parts of state)
No, Perl 5 has
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:11:01AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 08:38:01AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > Does this mean that you're using the same recursive approach that the perl 5
> > regular expression engine uses? (Not that I understand much of the perl 5
> > e
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 05:46:30PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:11:01AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 08:38:01AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> > > Does this mean that you're using the same recursive approach that the
> > > perl 5
> >
What's going on with overloading in 0.60? The docs say it will compare
a string-overloaded object with a string but when I run the code below
I get
===
# x = stringy
not ok 1
# Failed test (over.pm at line 8)
Operation `eq': no method found,
left argument in overloaded package over
--- Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've always thought of C as being about the 'shape' of a
> data
> structure. When you think of things in this way, then it seems
> obvious that given
>
> $a = [], $b = [], $c = []
>
> then [$a, $a] and [$b, $c] have substantially different shapes.
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 12:02:44PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: Well, since each rule invocation ends up with its own stack
: (it's a Coroutine), I'm hoping this won't be a big issue. But if
: it does turn out to be one, I think we'll find a way to deal with
: it then. :-)
Well, for simpl
On Jun 30, 2005, at 21:30, Andrew Dougherty wrote:
Failed 7/157 test scripts, 95.54% okay. 22/2625 subtests failed,
99.16% okay.
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
Thanks for trying it out and testing it. I've found hopefully a lot of
these bug. The one ta
On Jul 1, 2005, at 19:46, Michal Wallace wrote:
aa = A()
print aa + 5
Hmm. I'm pretty sure this is handled automagically by the Python pmc's
in pirate... Using the + in pir (or the add op) actually invokes a
dispatch
Err, *if* the python translater emits
$Px = aa + 5
it's of course up
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 09:43:02AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 08:38:01AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> : Does this mean that you're using the same recursive approach that the perl 5
> : regular expression engine uses? (Not that I understand much of the perl 5
> : engine, ex
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:25:10AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Currently, does this:
:
: sub foo (::T $x, ::T $y) { }
:
: and this:
:
: sub foo (T $x, T $y) { }
:
: Means the same thing, namely
:
:a) if the package T is defined in scope, use that as the
: type constraint fo
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 05:57:51PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> On 7/1/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > demerphq wrote:
> > > it is important that this is debated outside of just the perl-qa list
> > > (its not that high traffic or visibility IMO) so I have taken the
> > > liberty of s
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:12:40PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: Does this mean that to remove recursion from perl 5,
: instead of re-writing the engine to be iterative, it might be easier to
: emulate co-routines using setjmp/longjmp, retaining almost all of the existing
: code?
Easier, yes. Mo
> Attempting to come up with a simplistic math grammar that has one possible
> operand (A) and one possible operator (*) - so that things like A, A*A, and
> A*A*A*A*A are all parsed. This simplistic example (thanks to spinclad on
> #perl6) cause PGE to explode.
>
> $ cat ta.p6r
> grammar f;
> rule
All~
On 7/1/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Attempting to come up with a simplistic math grammar that has one possible
> > operand (A) and one possible operator (*) - so that things like A, A*A, and
> > A*A*A*A*A are all parsed. This simplistic example (thanks to spinclad on
> > #pe
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:51:55AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: So either we need a different sigil for type variables, or a syntax
: for explitly binding and declaring an autovivified type. (Which,
: interestingly, could also be used in rvalue context.)
I neglected to provide an example of this, b
Perhaps type parameters to roles could also be written in (T) notation:
role Tree[(Returns)] {...}
but that would imply the parameter name is "Returns" rather than
"returns". Maybe that's okay, since it's usually a positional
parameter or a special "of" form anyway.
Larry
Er, that doesn't seem to match A or A*A or A*A*A...
grammar f;
rule atom { A }
rule binary { \* }
rule expr { | }
looks better. Now.. how to make this preferentially match the /whole/
string... Ah:
grammar f;
rule atom { A }
rule binary { \* }
rule any{ [ | ]}
rule expr
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 12:13:37PM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 05:57:51PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> > On 7/1/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > demerphq wrote:
> > > > it is important that this is debated outside of just the perl-qa list
> > > > (
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 10:28:29AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
> So, just for the sake of argument, imagine I write a class where I
> periodically returns array refs to the user. I do this by building
> them every time they're called. Later, I realize that my methods are
> deterministic so I start caching
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 02:39:46PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> On 6/30/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yves has some controversial ideas about what is and is not data structure
> > equivalence. I'd like comments on it.
>
> Well while im disappointed that its considered to be a c
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 03:08:50PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> What's going on with overloading in 0.60? The docs say it will compare
> a string-overloaded object with a string but when I run the code below
I accidentally added in a short-circuit reference comparison prior to the
point where value
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Kevin Tew wrote:
I've been working on a python compiler also, feel free to take a look,,
svn co http://svn.openfoundry.org/pyparrot languages/python/pyparrot
My current boggle is how to handle the self parameter to method functions.
You can do things
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Demerphq
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > After talking with Ovid some in the kitchen I'm of the opinion that
> > is_deeply() is currently doing the right thing and that these tests cannot
> > go. Largely it c
MY BUSINESS IS DONE!
Test diagnostics now look like this:
not ok 21 - foo is bar?
# Failed test 'foo is bar?'
# in t/foo.t at line 40.
# got: 'foo'
# expected: 'bar'
If there's no description it looks like this:
not ok 21
# Failed test in t/foo.t at line 40.
#
Once upon a time I said:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/perl.dbi.users/msg/caf189d7b404a003?dmode=source&hl=en
and wrote
http://search.cpan.org/~timb/DBI/Roadmap.pod
which yielded:
https://donate.perlfoundation.org/index.pl?node=Fund+Drive+Details&selfund=102
(A little over $500 o
Will Coleda wrote:
Thanks to Matt Diephouse, partcl (parrot on tcl) is now able to run
part of tcl's cvs-latest test suite. We don't run enough of tcl at the
moment to run the tests natively, but by pulling the tests out of the
tcltest framework and converting them (sanely, we hope), we are
The following PIR code produces "NCI" as the output on my system:
$ cat lower.pir
.sub main @MAIN
$P0 = find_name "lower"
$S0 = typeof $P0
print $S0
print "\n"
.end
$ parrot lower.pir
NCI
$
I somewhat expected find_name to return a 'not fou
is() supresses "Use of uninitalized value" warnings because its useful to
do things like:
is( $foo, undef );
which provides more information than
ok( !defined $foo );
because if it is defined its nice to know what the value is.
Similarly is_deeply() suppresses undef warnings.
On 7/1/05, _brian_d_foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Demerphq
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 7/1/05, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > After talking with Ovid some in the kitchen I'm of the opinion that
> > > is_deeply() is currently doing th
53 matches
Mail list logo
